Would Anarchy Work?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Due to a recent convo I had with a friend over why anarchy would fail and how she argued it would eventually make a better society, what are the main reasons for anarchy becoming unworkable?

I just want a good show of points why such an initiative would be impossible and reasons for that point.

Anyone who wants to argue for anarchy is free to do so as long as the debate is kept civil.

Have at it!

[Shinova]

Due to a recent convo I had with a friend over why anarchy would fail and how she argued it would eventually make a better society, what are the main reasons for anarchy becoming unworkable?

I just want a good show of points why such an initiative would be impossible and reasons for that point.

Anyone who wants to argue for anarchy is free to do so as long as the debate is kept civil.

Have at it!

This is just me, but I think anarchy can work if humans evolved far enough that either fulfilling basic biological needs requires no effort or requires little effort. In that case, it may become so that humanity doesn't need a society to be in so that everyone can work together to make sure everyone can survive, since being alone means a greater chance of injury or death.

But if everyone evolves to the point of self-substinence (proper vocab?) then people might start drifting off and leaving social centers. Eventually majorly organized civilization might become like the inner cities, where the best has left, and those places might become like ghost towns, where the business has left and moved on to better pastures.


This is only if humans evolve to the point of self-substinence. Until then, living in an organized society is still better.


EDIT: Humans being social creatures, even after the evolution they may still hang around in groups and families but this dependency will become more of a need to fulfill the need for other human contact rather than safety in numbers.

[Queeb Salaron]

Anarchy is contradictory. Anarchy is the dissolving of political power. Anarchists go about causing chaos until that dissolving is forced upon a government. But what is chaos? Chaos is destruction. Destruction is a display of superiority. Displays of superiority lead to challenges of that superiority. Challenges lead to fighting. Fighting leads to war. War leads to victory. To be victorious is to impose the will of one group on another group. That is power. Power is structure. Structire is order. Order is not anarchy.

See SLC Punk for more on this.

[Colonel Olrik]

Have him explain how would any great project be accomplished. Without a nation wide funding and orientation, how would we have roads, bridges and international airfields. How would aerospatial programs get financed?

If it resulted, then society would soon become agrarian and stagnate.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

In an anarchist society, what's to prevent me from blowing your head off with a 10-guage shotgun (or picking off your entire family with a hunting rifle) and taking your food, water, and possesions?

Anarchists don't seem to take things like that into consideration. They think everything will automatically fall into place by themselves...

Anarchists are just one step above nihilists.

[salm]

Anarchy is contradictory. Anarchy is the dissolving of political power. Anarchists go about causing chaos until that dissolving is forced upon a government. But what is chaos? Chaos is destruction. Destruction is a display of superiority. Displays of superiority lead to challenges of that superiority. Challenges lead to fighting. Fighting leads to war. War leads to victory. To be victorious is to impose the will of one group on another group. That is power. Power is structure. Structire is order. Order is not anarchy.

See SLC Punk for more on this.

anarchy is simply the absence of a government. anarchists don´t necessarily go around and cause chaos. actually i´ve chatted with a couple of anarchists and they sound like the most peace loving folkes ever.
i´m not saying that anarchy would work though.
they were juts a bit waaaaay out in left field(proper ideom?) similar to people who think that komunism could actually work.

it could work for the rich people though. since there´s no government, everything would have to be privatized. also institutions like the police. the rich people would be able to aford these services and could keep the poor out of their living areas.

[Queeb Salaron]

In an anarchist society, what's to prevent me from blowing your head off with a 10-guage shotgun (or picking off your entire family with a hunting rifle) and taking your food, water, and possesions?

The motion-sensitive 20mm automatic pivoting machinegun mounted to the top of my roof.

Anarchists don't seem to take things like that into consideration. They think everything will automatically fall into place by themselves...

They're Utopian. And they admit it, for the most part.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

The motion-sensitive 20mm automatic pivoting machinegun mounted to the top of my roof.

Hense the rifle. And once I see the damn thing on your roof (assuming you could actually find something like that...), I'd use decoys to make it run out of ammunition.

But seriously, since there's no government or law, people can do whatever they want without worry of being punnished by any sort of authority.

[Sea Skimmer]

The motion-sensitive 20mm automatic pivoting machinegun mounted to the top of my roof.

So what happens when I roll by with a M1A1 I liberated from the local National Guard armory?

*Looks situation up in scenario index*

Hear it is, yes I see, you die and I steal you stuff after feeding your corpse to my dogs.

[Shinova]

Hense the rifle.

But seriously, since there's no government or law, people can do whatever they want without worry of being punnished by any sort of authority.

Actually, I've given some thought and I have a theory:


If the world was plunged into anarchy, eventually over the years, decades, or even centuries, organized civilization will automatically rise up again.

It's going to be common sense for people to stick together. Of course, at first in an absolute anarchy, everyone's going to be for himself. Over time, people start sticking together with other people they like and forming gangs.

Gangs become bigger gangs. Those become clans. Clans then become even bigger clans. Eventually, you get the first of nations.


Unless some kind of weird effect was keeping everyone from grouping up, eventually people are going to start coming together again, simply out of greater safety in numbers and of the allure of controlling people. So anarchy reverts becak to civilization automatically over time. Unless some outside force was preventing this from happening.

[Sea Skimmer]

But seriously, since there's no government or law, people can do whatever they want without worry of being punnished by any sort of authority.

That's when the militant armed mobs come in. People would band together and form communities and then governments. You simply can't get around that. Any form of long-term anarchy wont work with humans. Even Somalia now has something of a government again.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

So what happens when I roll by with a M1A1 I liberated from the local National Guard armory?

*Looks situation up in scenario index*

Hear it is, yes I see, you die and I steal you stuff after feeding your corpse to my dogs.

That is if you don't decide to eat it yourself.

[salm]

Hense the rifle.

But seriously, since there's no government or law, people can do whatever they want without worry of being punnished by any sort of authority.

Actually, I've given some thought and I have a theory:


If the world was plunged into anarchy, eventually over the years, decades, or even centuries, organized civilization will automatically rise up again.

It's going to be common sense for people to stick together. Of course, at first in an absolute anarchy, everyone's going to be for himself. Over time, people start sticking together with other people they like and forming gangs.

Gangs become bigger gangs. Those become clans. Clans then become even bigger clans. Eventually, you get the first of nations.


Unless some kind of weird effect was keeping everyone from grouping up, eventually people are going to start coming together again, simply out of greater safety in numbers and of the allure of controlling people. So anarchy reverts becak to civilization automatically over time. Unless some outside force was preventing this from happening.

well, lots of anarchists argue that people are going to stop to be violent and are going to stop to commit crime and that civilization is going to develope slowly into anarchy. they don´t want a sudden change because they know that there´s no way on earth that´s going to work.

[Frank Hipper]

My 16yo self would kick my 35yo self in the nuts for saying this, but anarchy would never work. We would revert to a warlord/strongman led tribal state of barbarism. Period.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Okay, this is the transcript of the convo from tonight, for some reason this erupted from arguing over how bad Diet Coke was (Jo, she loves the stuff ) and then we got to maturity and then anarchy.

I have formatted what I can to make it all the more readable but I was tired and trying to watch CSI and chat to others at the same time.

Jo says:
there is a difference... immature is a way of life man!

AV says:
?

Jo says:
it's not doing immature things per se, it's just a whokle outlook on life that accepts not responsibility for anthingQ!

AV says:
Such as?

AV says:
Sounds like anarchy almost.

Jo says:
I am an ararchist though, so yeah

AV says:
Lol, anarchy is one of the STUPIDEST concepts in the world, do you "Fight the Man"?

Jo says:
no

Jo says:
i just think that people should take control themselves

AV says:
And anarchy is the way?

Jo says:
not in the way that society sees it now

Jo says:
but only without central authority can we truly be free

AV says:
Good, then you'll respect the freedom of the rapist that rapes you, the murderer who hates you and kills you or the robber that thinks you have too much money. Can't stop them, they have the right to do that.

Jo says:
*shrugs* in the long term they would die out, think about it... if it's every man for himself and we all have to do what we need to survive on our own authority, then pretty soon scumbags like that will be wiped out of society

AV says:
That's... bad logic. Very bad logic. You assume natural selection works on the societal level, it does not. You'd think these people wouldn't exist now because of the law, yet they do. Look at Africa, half the place doesn't have law and order because the gov'ts couldn't give a shit or are fighting rebels who like to kill for no real reason. If you think Zimbabwe is the future then I'm sorry, no.

Jo says:
How does anyone know it wouldn't work? have we ever tried it? no

Jo says:
It is bad logic to assume it won't work.

AV says:
Excuse me? Look at Africa like I said. Point.

AV says:
South Africa especially, I had a mate who lived there the first 16 years of his life. This is a place where they have FLAMETHROWERS as anti-car theft devices, a place where some guy chucked a hand grenade into the street that nearly killed said mate.

AV says:
Heck, even LA isn't that bad.

Jo says:
In Africa the people did not take power back for themselves; there is still a central authority

Jo says:
People do not take responsibility for their actions because, however bad the government is, it is a safety blanket to fall back on

Jo says:
If that option was not available, then things would be different.

Jo says:
Any why would law change human behaviour? Law simple makes criminals out of people who were not before.

AV says:
So okay, say you get the UK to lose the central and regional gov'ts. Then what?

Jo says:
I cannot say what would happen, that is the beauty of anarchy. We would be forced to think for ourselves, alien as the concept might be.

AV says:
Bullshit. As a historian you should know damn well what would happen, look to England in the middle-ages.

AV says:
Using that logic, I could say that swimming in a volcano isn't a bad idea as no one has tried it,.

Jo says:
At which precise moment in this 500 year period are yo referring to?

AV says:
The parts where there were no specific gov't, where no one really had rights, where there where settlements and not towns. The same can be said of the Mongols, no one could stop them and they raped, pillaged and destroyed all they could. Anarchy is the wet dream of angsty teenagers who can't take authrority and think they can actually change the world.

Jo says:
Do people have rights now?

AV says:
Uh, yes?

Jo says:
Name them.

Jo says:
The only right we ever have had, or eer will have, is to fight for what we think shoulkd be other rights.

AV says:
The right to decent healthcare, the right to freedom of speech, the right to practice religion, the right to an education.
Jo says:
They are not rights, they are privileges... if the government decided to take them away, we could not stop them.

AV says:
Additionally, this isn't just rights. When you have anarchy, who makes the food? Who supplies power, drives you to your house?
Jo says:
When you have full anarchy, you do everything for yourself.

AV says:
Oh please, you sound like a 2nd amendment gun nut I know. "We need guns incase the gov't takes us over!"

AV says:
Yep, and you can fly a plane, repair a TV, cook gourmet food, make clothes...

Jo says:
No, not in case of that. But if the government decided to close all the hospitals, what could you do about it?

Jo says:
If you can't do it, you don't get it, is very simple.

AV says:
It's called democracy. You think people will just go "Oh no, no more hospitals, guess we're in the shitter now." Give me a reason why an ELECTED gov't would commit suicide that way? And pray tell, how would they enforce this?

Jo says:
I would also like to point out that by definition, a 'right' is something intrinsic to the human form, something that cannot be removed under any circumstance... even life does not qualify.

AV says:
Then I guess that makes anarchy just as bad since there is nothing to stop me going around and killing Yan with a shotgun. What would you do? Call the cops?

Jo says:
We have no rights. I acknowledge the fact that you cannot challange this statement.

Jo says:
Because no, there is nothing stoping you going out and killing someone.

AV says:
Oh? And why do we not have rights? And you haven't taken on the argument about lack of order.

AV says:
So great, I hate someone and I can kill them.

Jo says:
Indeed. There is nothing physically preventing you from taking someone's life; thus, life itself is a privilege. However, that is not to say that you would escape punishment- I imagine that one would be rather deterred from murder if one knew that a mob would come and do the same to you once they discovered the crime.

AV says:
Okay, now I have a gang with imported arms and expertise from ex-cons and military servicemen, I also have access to military hardware. I suddenly take a dislike to you and your college and decide to send a death squad there, armed. What do you do?

Jo says:
One would suggest die; but what makes that any different from now? If you were to send a death squad to kill me now I would be just as dead.

AV says:
Because, yur anarchy now means jack shit now that *I* have the authority and not you or any other gov't. You are now back to square one as my regime grows and the cult gets bigger. Or any other one, the KKK, Fatah, Al-Qaeda, WCotC and so on.

Jo says:
Then it is no longer anarchy. You seem to have been caught up in the modern naive view of anarchy. In its purest sense, it is simple mankind taking control of his own destiny. I see no problem with this.

Jo says:
Or perhaps you wish to be controlled?

AV says:
If it means that I can lead a life without worrying about just anybody doing what the hell they want, then yes. In which case, since you said my example shows anarchy is rescinded, I guess that makes anarchy as fullfillable as true socialism.

AV says:
Human nature again.


Jo says:
No. I would disagree. Your arguement concerning the inevitable failing of anarchy is based on one point: that the cruelty of man towards its fellow is a fundamental part of our nature.

AV says:
Which it is.

Jo says:
This would require the acknowledgement that we alone of all the species to have been created are naturally hostile to our brethren, and will kill for no reason. I refute this fact; cruelty is something that we have developed for ourselves.

Jo says:
Evolution states we are descended from the animals; it would be logical that our urges would match theirs.

AV says:
How do you mean?

AV says:
You do know animals kill their own as well?

Jo says:
For no reason other than to sate blood lust? I acknowledge that no species enploys universal benevolence. However, I do not see how the human race could have survived if it was in our fundamental makeup to destory each other, rather than to cooperate.

Jo says:
*destroy

AV says:
Well why do people like Tim McVeigh kill dozens of his own? Why do mentally disturbed people go on killing sprees? It's life, it happens because of human nature. You can argue that this was our doing, but to say that you will change human nature is absurd to say the least.

Jo says:
That is now, yes, I am saying that we have bred ourselves to be the way that we are, but if circumstances dictated, I believe that we would revert back to the co-operative nature that we once must have possessed in order to survive.

AV says:
Yes, and racists will accept blacks once they get to know them. This is the height of gullibility.

Jo says:
I am sure that you are aware of the 'nature vs. nurture' debate, and are also fully aware that on a mico level, personalities are developed based upon the nurturing individuals recieve. Why then would this not be true on a macro level, that the human personality has been warped by the society that we find ourselves in.

Jo says:
*micro

AV says:
Because it is assuming there is logic to everything we do. Name me one logical reason a racist dislikes a black for? There is none. Nor is there a reason for people killing others with no motive, it's just human nature and it's how we are and as far as I can see, we always will be pretty much.

AV says:
You're proposing we all become one and the same entity.

Jo says:
And to address a point that I did not fully register before 'Why do mentally disturbed people go on killing sprees?' You have answered it yourself, in that they do not obey normal human nature.

Jo says:
Do not forget, all the people such as murderers, racists, rapists, they are the minority in society.

AV says:
But then racists could also be mentally disturbed from a point.

AV says:
Not from what I can see.

Jo says:
Yes... we are to judge all human society upon the basis of some people even you are ackownledging are not normal?

Jo says:
May I ask, how many murdereds or rapists have you met in your life?

AV says:
Care to look at iraq as well? Anarchy occured there just a few weeks ago, I like how all that crap hit the fan when that happened.

AV says:
That's a fallacy, I could ask you how many anarchists you have met.

Jo says:
*murderers

Jo says:
Answer the question. You denied that murderers and rapists form a minority oin society. Defend your stance.

AV says:
You'd have to actually know who they were and to be honest, I don't remember the last time a rapist or murderer told me he/she was one in public.

Jo says:
So, that means you have met none, out of the thousands of people you have met in your life. I believe that this would constitute a minority.

AV says:
Ah yes, I have also met 0 anarchists too. You are also in the minority are you not?

Jo says:
In wanting a revolution, possibly. In believing that we would benefit from a greater say in our lives, then no, probably not.

AV says:
So it's still a minority concept that is shunned because it is totally unworkable?

AV says:
Unless human nature magically alters, then anarchy will not work. Simple as.

Jo says:
Human nature is not to be ruled though, how can you not see that? Human nature is to co-operate, just like every single animal species upon the planet.

AV says:
Not really, when it boils down to it, the individual matters, not the race.

AV says:
And this is seen in nature.

Jo says:
That is my point... the anarchich society would consist of the individual.

AV says:
And? How is this good? The individual wants your car, he kills you. Tough shit. If you think that is preferable to what we have now, you're scaring me.

Jo says:
You seem to be missing my point. I am saying that the fundamental nature of the individual is not to steal/murder/rape, and it is our society that had nurtured us into these bahavioural patterns. One would logically conclude, if this society wwas removed, we would eventually revert back to co-operative natures.

AV says:
How so? It's not hard to see that when we were still living in caves we had gangland warfare. what if you have something I don't? I want it badly enough then I can steal it, bugger sharing it with you, I want it for myself. Then what do you do?

Jo says:
Most people are happy to share.

AV says:
And others don't. Your point?

AV says:
It's that minority that makes anarchy impossible.

Jo says:
In the long term, that minority would be dissipated.

AV says:
How?

Jo says:
And I cannot help but notice that you have gone from saying anarchy would be totally unworkable in its nature, to saying it would only fail due to the actions of a minority.

AV says:
You don't know of memetics, these guys get their gangs going, teach others not to take any shit from the softer groups of people around who have other resources and you have another generation.

AV says:
And it IS still unworkable because of that minority!

AV says:
You think minorities just go away and don't mean anything? Okay, your majority has a lot of clothes and stuff, a minority has a lot of weapons. Guess which gets weeded out of society first?

Jo says:
You take a very short term view. I am not saying that they would disappear in a few years, I am saying hundreds of years.

AV says:
And it doesn't stop, minorities can grow and eventually someone will call to an end to this. Et voila, a gov't or authoritive force is conceived.

AV says:
So in which case it is unworkable, thanks for killing the argument.

AV says:
If we take up living in the sea then we may get gills and be able to live in the sea all nice and happy, it will take millions of years, but I feel it will be better than what we have now. That is basically your argument. I no doubt see that communism could work, THOUSANDS of years from now. Does that make it right?

Jo says:
I see no reason why we cannot lay the foundations for a better world now. Do you feel no care for the society that you leave to your descendants?

AV says:
I almost forgot the economic problems too, heh. Infinite wants and limited resources, it would be interesting to see what happens when 6 billion privateers want food and water and clothes that are in short supply. Can't share that easily.

AV says:
I feel that basically going "ah, to hell with order" is a bit of a stupid idea.

Jo says:
I think that I have more idea how my life could be enriched than the government do.

AV says:
Maybe, but that argument doesn't validate anarchy. You'd have to show me a group of people over 50 that have NO form of authority in them.

AV says:
Unless you can show how these groups work without a central figure, your argument is bunk. Anarchy is simple chaos by definition and cannot be done.

Jo says:
MY FATHER

AV says:
Ah, so your family still has a figurehead? So much for fighting the man.

Jo says:
Ah, you are back to saying that it is a fundamental flaw in anarchy and no longer the minority. Make up your mind before you try to argue a point.

Jo says:
My family has no figurehead; we all do as we please.

AV says:
It's based on the minority and economics and ethics and every other damn thing there is. Anarchy is a way of life, you think it doesn't encompass all things?

AV says:
So do you steal things?

Jo says:
I do not feel the need. I have all that I need to get by. However, if I did feel the need, then I would see no problem with it, no.

AV says:
So stealing is okay then? What about murder? What if you really hated someone and they wouldn't leave you alone, Mike for instance.

Jo says:
I do not feel the need to murder.

Jo says:
Gratuitous stealing is not acceptable. But as a concept, no, I do not have any moral issues with it.

AV says:
Mike wants to murder you, what do you do? He can do it with effectively no repercussions if he has power.

Jo says:
He can try; I can defend myself. I do not see how this is any different to now. Psychopathic minorities will kill if they wish whether there is a law or not.

AV says:
Yes, but he can get away with it scot free if he has a gang larger than yours and better equipped. Sorry, but it seems you lost.

AV says:
That does not happen so easily today, we have forces made to stop these things. You do realise that there are an awful lot of terrorist actions taken against us that we are blissfully unaware as the MI5 and GCHQ stop them with the SAS so quickly and efficiently. take that away, what's to stop someone using their knowledge of nuclear weapons from detonating a nuke in every major population centre?

AV says:
Power goes to people and some have more than others, only if we were all truly equal would it be good.

AV says:
But we are not all equal.

AV says:
Again, there are the economic concerns too. What do you do when you haven't enough to share? Do you put the middle finger up to the other groups of people? Is that fair? Hell no, screw them. You are all that matters, but then they hate you for it and you have an organised enemy again. Well done, you just jumped into the fire.

AV says:
In a perfect world, yes, it would work, it would be like socialism, we'd have machines making and doing everything and infinite resources, but where's the motive to do stuff? What if people don't *want* to work? Can you do all those jobs? Of course not. That is where it breaks down, the individual can not do what an organised society does, look at ants for proof of that.

Jo says:
Again though, you assume that there must be a society, and a high tech one at that.

Jo says:
Unfortunately, we shall never agree upon this as I desperately wish that I lived in an age without technology.

AV says:
Then you'd like to live without proper medical care, the ability to talk to people far away and have proper heating and food. To be honest, I couldn't imagine someone from 1665 wanting to stay as they are compared to today.

Jo says:
I do not see that those things mentioned are things that I could not live without/

AV says:
That's because you haven't lived without them. I lived for a couple of days as a true Viking when I was 11 in the Yorkshire moors. Saying that the experience from the Viking foundation was tough is like saying the sun is a bit hot. I do NOT want to live like people did 100, 200 or 1000 years ago no matter how less hectic it may seem.

Jo says:
No, it is not the true experience. You were accustomed to life now. No doubt the people of 1000 years future will wonder how we survived in our technology deprived world.

AV says:
So you think people 1000 years ago would choose their life over ours? Get real. My dad is fifty years old and envies the life I lead now compared to one 40 years ago.

Jo says:
Why?

Jo says:
Our world is not a nice place to live in. We simply try to convince ourselves that technology makes up for that.

AV says:
Why? Because of the advances our species made of course, our lives now are very different to that of 50 years ago, letalone 1000.

AV says:
And suddenly the world is magically Teletubby nice when anarchy is implemented? I don't think so.

AV says:
Besides, you'd still be oppressing the minority as the gov't does to you. I don't want anarchy yet you'd revolt, an action that by it's very nature is authoritarian, to destroy my way of life.

AV says:
You think I'd sit back and accept that?

Jo says:
It would be up to you to do as you saw fit; this is the point.

AV says:
I don't want anarchy. I want to stop it. You now have a problem. Do you kill me?

Jo says:
If you ask me to accept your right to stand against anarchy, you must also accept my right to stand against centralised authority.

AV says:
Perhaps, but therein your anarchy fails again. It is one or the other, so far the majority likes life as it is now and so it stays. When anarchists are the majority, then it will change.

Jo says:
But anyway, much s this debate has potential I am up early tomorrow and have 2 essays yet to write, so i shall bit you farewell.

AV says:
I shall continue this at a later date, I need a shower now anyway.

So there you go.

[Ignorant twit]

Anarchy means that instead of having a few select men ready to do violence on our behalf (the cops and the military), we'd ALL have to be ready.

Unless you can magically get rid of the guys who would kill you, organization is the only way for those of us who don't want to live by the sword to be protected from those who do.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Anarchy means that instead of having a few select men ready to do violence on our behalf (the cops and the military), we'd ALL have to be ready.

Unless you can magically get rid of the guys who would kill you, organization is the only way for those of us who don't want to live by the sword to be protected from those who do.

According to my friend at least, they will disappear overnight.

[Ignorant twit]

Your friend is naive. Shall we go to Somalia for field study?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Your friend is naive. Shall we go to Somalia for field study?

I already told her she is and mentioned such examples.

She is very liberal yet this whole idea seems the opposite to what she would normally think.

[weemadando]

Anarchy will always work. Its just a damn hassle to all involved.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Anarchy will work when human nature changes to the same sort needed for socialism to work.

[Joe]

Anarchy won't work, because ultimately it comes down to "who has the most guns."

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Anarchy will work when human nature changes to the same sort needed for socialism to work.

So in short, never.

[weemadando]

Anarchy won't work, because ultimately it comes down to "who has the most guns."

Which is exactly HOW anarchy works. Jeeeeezuuuus man. Anarchy is anarchy... Not a nice controlled socialist utopia!

[Joe]

Anarchy won't work, because ultimately it comes down to "who has the most guns."

Which is exactly HOW anarchy works. Jeeeeezuuuus man. Anarchy is anarchy... Not a nice controlled socialist utopia!

Which is why it baffles me that so many hardcore socialist types become anarchists. They still want some centralized collective force to control everything, they just dislike the words "state" and "government."